Will federer spare pete of his remaining 2 records?

[NonP]

I'll try and explain it another way.

Here's the two opposing positions:

1. The structural/institutional factors are relevant to the importance of the achievement under discussion.

2. The structural/institutional factors are not relevant to the importance of the achievement under discussion.

I reject 1. and favour 2.
You reject 2. and favour 1.

You're right that it's a personal preference. I did try one argument, it was my analogy with the prestige associated with Wimbledon. The cultural factors associated with with Wimbledon's prestige do not make it a greater achievement to win than it would be to win the USO. Same goes for the CYGS.

You seem to think it's reasonable to reject 2. and favour 1. without argument but unreasonable to do the converse. Are people not allowed to have subjective opinions about what makes things great without rigorous supporting argument? After all, I'm not calling anyone stupid or anything for thinking that CYGS is more important than a NCYGS for institutional/structural reasons - I'm not trying to persuade anyone or prove anything. In fact, I stated this before and your most recent post suggests that you didn't remember that I stated this.

Except that you don't reject 1 altogether. In fact you objected to my "analogy" between the pressure put on the player by the CYGS and the status of the AO/the amateur-pro demarcation before the Open era. But as I explained upthread, all these are structural/institutional factors that affect the tour as a whole. They all influence the players' performances and achievements, just in different practical ways.

I'm well aware that this is a personal preference of yours, and you're entitled to it. But it's an inconsistent position, and if you want to resolve this inconsistency you need to explain why you accept some of these factors but reject others. Since you disagreed with my analogy I thought you might want to validate your position. If not, fine. Up to you.

As for your own analogy between the CYGS and the prestige of Wimbledon, I'd say what matters is how the prestige influenced actual results. The cultural factors alone are not a good basis on which to upgrade (or downgrade) Wimbledon. Stats are nothing without context.

 

[piece]

Except that you don't reject 1 altogether. In fact you objected to my "analogy" between the pressure put on the player by the CYGS and the status of the AO/the amateur-pro demarcation before the Open era. But as I explained upthread, all these are structural/institutional factors that affect the tour as a whole. They all influence the players' performances and achievements, just in different practical ways.

I'm well aware that this is a personal preference of yours, and you're entitled to it. But it's an inconsistent position, and if you want to resolve this inconsistency you need to explain why you accept some of these factors but reject others. Since you disagreed with my analogy I thought you might want to validate your position. If not, fine. Up to you.

As for your own analogy between the CYGS and the prestige of Wimbledon, I'd say what matters is how the prestige influenced actual results. The cultural factors alone are not a good basis on which to upgrade (or downgrade) Wimbledon. Stats are nothing without context.

I don't think I understand you. How is my position inconsistent?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I'll try and explain it another way.

Here's the two opposing positions:

1. The structural/institutional factors are relevant to the importance of the achievement under discussion.

2. The structural/institutional factors are not relevant to the importance of the achievement under discussion.

I reject 1. and favour 2.
You reject 2. and favour 1.

You're right that it's a personal preference. I did try one argument, it was my analogy with the prestige associated with Wimbledon. The cultural factors associated with with Wimbledon's prestige do not make it a greater achievement to win than it would be to win the USO. Same goes for the CYGS.

You seem to think it's reasonable to reject 2. and favour 1. without argument but unreasonable to do the converse. Are people not allowed to have subjective opinions about what makes things great without rigorous supporting argument? After all, I'm not calling anyone stupid or anything for thinking that CYGS is more important than a NCYGS for institutional/structural reasons - I'm not trying to persuade anyone or prove anything. In fact, I stated this before and your most recent post suggests that you didn't remember that I stated this.

I think one of the reasons institutional/structural factors and prestige make an event more difficult is because players divert more time and resources to winning an event that is considered more important/prestigious, so therefore it becomes more competitive, so the probabilities of winning it become lower for each player.

SO as long as it can be established by surveys or something that an event is considered more important to the players than other events due to structural/institutional reasons or whatever reasons, then it becomes more difficult to win, so the achievement of winning it is greater.

I'm sure the French Open would be a lot more difficult to win if they lifted the prize money to $100million(making it more important to players) while keeping the prize money of the other tournaments the same. Obviously players would divert more resources(time/training/coaches) to winning it. more players would probably spend 12 months on specialist training for 5 set clay tennis and relatively much less time on hard court training.

 

[piece]

I think one of the reasons institutional/structural factors and prestige make an event more difficult is because players divert more time and resources to winning an event that is considered more important/prestigious, so therefore it becomes more competitive, so the probabilities of winning it become lower for each player.

SO as long as it can be established by surveys or something that an event is considered more important to the players than other events due to structural/institutional reasons or whatever reasons, then it becomes more difficult to win, so the achievement of winning it is greater.

I'm sure the French Open would be a lot more difficult to win if they lifted the prize money to $100million(making it more important to players) while keeping the prize money of the other tournaments the same. Obviously players would divert more resources(time/training/coaches) to winning it. more players would probably spend 12 months on specialist training for 5 set clay tennis and relatively much less time on hard court training.

These are all very good points.

I would still say, however, that they don't apply to the CYGS vs NCYGS, even if the CYGS is generally considered more prestigious. This is because each achievement is composed of 4 consecutive slams and it's not like the field is going to be trying less hard to win a slam just because that slam could only be part of a NCYGS - not a CYGS. The field gives their best to win slams regardless, so the relative importance of these two achievements has no effect in that regard to the relative difficulty of these two achievements.

A player might feel more pressure for a CYGS than an NCYGS though.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

These are all very good points.

I would still say, however, that they don't apply to the CYGS vs NCYGS, even if the CYGS is generally considered more prestigious. This is because each achievement is composed of 4 consecutive slams and it's not like the field is going to be trying less hard to win a slam just because that slam could only be part of a NCYGS - not a CYGS. The field gives their best to win slams regardless, so the relative importance of these two achievements has no effect in that regard to the relative difficulty of these two achievements.

A player might feel more pressure for a CYGS than an NCYGS though.

I would agree except for the NCYGS that starts with Wimbledon. W, USO, AO, FO because its much harder to win Wimbledon straight after winning the FO, as the FO winner has minimal time to prepare and adapt for the grass season, just a few weeks, so any extra preparation time and rest time before WImbledon would be very advantageous.

 

[NonP]

I don't think I understand you. How is my position inconsistent?

Again:

The prescribed schedule of the CYGS, the status of the AO before the '90s, the amateur/pro tour demarcation before the Open era--these are all factors that affect the tour as a whole. No player is free from their influence, which is why I categorize them as structural or institutional.

You say you reject the structural/institutional factors as irrelevant to the importance of achievements in tennis (and by extension any other sport), but at the same time you think the erstwhile AO status and amateur/pro demarcation do matter because they had an effect on the competition. There's the inconsistency.

Also, the additional pressure that comes with increased competition is similar if not idential in nature to the pressure of pursuing the CYGS. If anything the latter involves more layers of difficulty as the player has to compete against both his opponents and history. Tennis, like any other sport, is a physical and mental game. And it's not unusual to see red-hot players shake up their draw at the majors only to buckle under pressure in the final (or earlier). It's not just because of their opponents' ability that they often fall short of a major title. It's also because they realize, consciously or not, that they'll be making history by going all the way at the majors. This is just common sense, backed up by years' worth of results. And I've already commented on how the CYGS owes its difficulty to this very challenge of facing history, only in this case spread over the course of 4 consecutive majors and heightened by the prestige and the prescribed structure of the tour.

Yet you say the pressure of CYGS pursuit is irrelevant. If you still insist on the consistency of your position, then you need to explain why such physical and mental challenges matter in case of the AO question and the amateur/pro demarcation, but not the CYGS. You need to show that there's some meaningful difference.

 

[piece]

Again:

The prescribed schedule of the CYGS, the status of the AO before the '90s, the amateur/pro tour demarcation before the Open era--these are all factors that affect the tour as a whole. No player is free from their influence, which is why I categorize them as structural or institutional.

You say you reject the structural/institutional factors as irrelevant to the importance of achievements in tennis (and by extension any other sport), but at the same time you think the erstwhile AO status and amateur/pro demarcation do matter because they had an effect on the competition. There's the inconsistency.
Also, the additional pressure that comes with increased competition is similar if not idential in nature to the pressure of pursuing the CYGS. If anything the latter involves more layers of difficulty as the player has to compete against both his opponents and history. Tennis, like any other sport, is a physical and mental game. And it's not unusual to see red-hot players shake up their draw at the majors only to buckle under pressure in the final (or earlier). It's not just because of their opponents' ability that they often fall short of a major title. It's also because they realize, consciously or not, that they'll be making history by going all the way at the majors. This is just common sense, backed up by years' worth of results. And I've already commented on how the CYGS owes its difficulty to this very challenge of facing history, only in this case spread over the course of 4 consecutive majors and heightened by the prestige and the prescribed structure of the tour.

Yet you say the pressure of CYGS pursuit is irrelevant. If you still insist on the consistency of your position, then you need to explain why such physical and mental challenges matter in case of the AO question and the amateur/pro demarcation, but not the CYGS. You need to show that there's some meaningful difference.

Yes, I can see what you mean. I should have been more careful in limiting my rejection of the importance of institutional/structural factors to cases where said factors did not influence competition. But I now disagree with you that mental pressure is analogous to outside level of competition in terms of its effect on the objective worth of an achievement.

For example, assume that winning the FO and winning the USO are equally good achievements. Now imagine a player from the US winning the FO, and then winning the USO with huge home-crowd pressure to perform. Imagine a second player who had also won both tournaments but was from England. And assume that in all other respects the players are equal (game, achievements etc.). Are the achievements of the first player objectively greater than the achievements of the second because the pressure the first player was under to win the USO made it a greater achievement than it would have been sans pressure? I don't think so, and if you do, all I can say is that I disagree. Winning the USO for our first player might be a greater achievement for him personally (because of the home-crowd pressure etc), but it is not an objectively greater achievement.

I can understand the prestige making the CYGS generally regarded as being the superior achievement, but if considerations of prestige have no effect on the outside level competition for a CYGS relative to an NCYGS - which I've argued they don't upthread - then I personally see no reason to regard the CYGS as a superior achievement.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Yes, I can see what you mean. I should have been more careful in limiting my rejection of the importance of institutional/structural factors to cases where said factors did not influence competition. But I now disagree with you that mental pressure is analogous to outside level of competition in terms of its effect on the objective worth of an achievement.

For example, assume that winning the FO and winning the USO are equally good achievements. Now imagine a player from the US winning the FO, and then winning the USO with huge home-crowd pressure to perform. Imagine a second player who had also won both tournaments but was from England. And assume that in all other respects the players are equal (game, achievements etc.). Are the achievements of the first player objectively greater than the achievements of the second because the pressure the first player was under to win the USO made it a greater achievement than it would have been sans pressure? I don't think so, and if you do, all I can say is that I disagree. Winning the USO for our first player might be a greater achievement for him personally (because of the home-crowd pressure etc), but it is not an objectively greater achievement.

I can understand the prestige making the CYGS generally regarded as being the superior achievement, but if considerations of prestige have no effect on the outside level competition for a CYGS relative to an NCYGS - which I've argued they don't upthread - then I personally see no reason to regard the CYGS as a superior achievement.

Just the fact that the NCYGS has an off season where there is a rest and recuperation period free of competition and competitive pressures,and wear on the body(that everyone else has to go through when completing a CYGS), makes the NCYGS easier. I think that's one big reason why the CYGS is a lot more prestigious and more difficult than a NCYGS.

 

[piece]

Just the fact that the NCYGS has an off season where there is a rest and recuperation period free of competition and competitive pressures,and wear on the body(that everyone else has to go through when completing a CYGS), makes the NCYGS easier. I think that's one big reason why the CYGS is a lot more prestigious and more difficult than a NCYGS.

You might well be right. But it's very hard to determine the answers in some of these things just by thinking about them. For instance, I could say the off season that breaks up an NCYGS makes it harder to keep the run of form that you obviously need to win four slams in a row, whilst the continuous season is much more conducive to such a run of form, thus making the CYGS easier in this respect.

Also, something that shouldn't be forgotten - the potential breaks between AO and Indian Wells and Wimby and the Rogers Cup are essentially as big as the off season (about 1 month) and these kinds of breaks are taken by at least some of the best players fairly often. So if a season has at least one break as big as the the off season, it's hard to see how this could be a basis for evaluating a CYGS and NCYGS differently.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

You might well be right. But it's very hard to determine the answers in some of these things just by thinking about them. For instance, I could say the off season that breaks up an NCYGS makes it harder to keep the run of form that you obviously need to win four slams in a row, whilst the continuous season is much more conducive to such a run of form, thus making the CYGS easier in this respect.

Also, something that shouldn't be forgotten - the potential breaks between AO and Indian Wells and Wimby and the Rogers Cup are essentially as big as the off season (about 1 month) and these kinds of breaks are taken by at least some of the best players fairly often. So if a season has at least one break as big as the the off season, it's hard to see how this could be a basis for evaluating a CYGS and NCYGS differently.

I think most people/players would agree that an end of year off season is a much bigger advantage than not having one, regardless of whatever other info you throw in. And also with the other info you threw in one could have the equivalency of 2 off seasons instead of 1 during a NCYGS, so it would still be an advantage.HA

 

[piece]

I think most people/players would agree that an end of year off season is a much bigger advantage than not having one, regardless of whatever other info you throw in. And also with the other info you threw in one could have the equivalency of 2 off seasons instead of 1 during a NCYGS, so it would still be an advantage.HA

Well if you consider those breaks equivalent of off seasons then, as I said, there would be two in a calendar year (not including the off season) too.

You could be right that the off season is a bigger advantage than it is a disadvantage, but I'm not convinced either way. As an example of it being a disadvantage, take a look at Federer's 2005 season - consistent great form throughout the whole of the season, but after the off season, he had probably the least convincing GS victory of his whole prime, the '06 AO. He was in much poorer form post off season than he was pre off season. So, based purely on his own form, it might have been easier to get an '05 calendar slam than a NCYGS that bridged '05 and '06 because of the hump the off season throws in.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Well if you consider those breaks equivalent of off seasons then, as I said, there would be two in a calendar year (not including the off season) too.

You could be right that the off season is a bigger advantage than it is a disadvantage, but I'm not convinced either way. As an example of it being a disadvantage, take a look at Federer's 2005 season - consistent great form throughout the whole of the season, but after the off season, he had probably the least convincing GS victory of his whole prime, the '06 AO. He was in much poorer form post off season than he was pre off season. So, based purely on his own form, it might have been easier to get an '05 calendar slam than a NCYGS that bridged '05 and '06 because of the hump the off season throws in.

I guess its possible to argue for any position in anything but I think you will be in the vast minority in thinking than an end of season off season isn't a huge benefit for tennis players or for any sportspeople/teams in every sport, and following from this that a NCYGS is as impressive as a CYGS, so we can disagree on this.

 

[piece]

I guess its possible to argue for any position in anything but I think you will be in the vast minority in thinking than an end of season off season isn't a huge benefit for tennis players or for any sportspeople/teams in every sport, and following from this that a NCYGS is as impressive as a CYGS, so we can disagree on this.

I think you're right that I'm in the minority haha. But I'm sure you'd miss all the arguing if everyone around here was in the majority

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Added pressure on a player to achieve something doesn't make that something more great (to my mind) than something for which there was less pressure to achieve. This is your criterion, and I see no reason why the burden of proof is on me to argue against it and prove my own point. Your beliefs don't enjoy some special default status.

Added pressure is just a side effect of added importance of an event.

You think a player will try equally as hard to win any slam ie the 4th slam in a NCYGS as they would to win the 4th slam of a CYGS. I disagree. People devote more resources to an event they consider more important. And the general consensus is that the CYGS is considered more important

I think these two are true

1/That people/players (general consensus) consider a CYGS more important than a NCYGS.
2/ People devote more resources to events that they consider more important.

Thus the 4th slam of a CYGS is considered more important than the 4th of a NCYGS and so players will devote more resources to winning the 4th of a CYGS than the 4th of a NCYGS. Thus they will not try equally hard when competing in the 4th slam of a CYGS compared to winning the 4th slam of a NCYGS, they will try harder. I don't just mean try harder at the actual slam, but putting more resources into their preparation for the slam.

Anyone achieving a NCYGs and claiming that it is as great as achieving a CYGS is competing against an easier criteria than those achieving a CYGS as no one else in history considers the NCYGS as important, so no one else tries as hard to win the 4th slam of the NCYGS compared to the 4th slam of the CYGS for example.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I think you're right that I'm in the minority haha. But I'm sure you'd miss all the arguing if everyone around here was in the majority

Yep, but as long as the players (competitors) as a collective group overwhelmingly agree that the CYGS (or any event) is more important than any other event, then that is what makes it become more difficult to achieve and a greater achievement due to the reasons I have already outlined. Your minority opposing view that a NCYGS is as impressive then becomes irrelevant as it has no impact on the actual difficulty level/impressiveness of the event.

 

[larlarbd]

I don't think FED will do too well at this years WIMBY since FED is missing that spark/magic that he usually has ( a magic/spark that just vanishes as soon as he is playing Nadal ) ... & new & upcoming players will catch-up by next year as well as degrading quality by Fed himself - so I don't see him winning another WIMBY ( maybe one more USO - I wish him good luck ) ....

I was an anti-Roddick , but I dearly hope Andy does well at this years WIMBY ( & maybe WIN ) - he deserves this , just would be so nice to see him win on Grass.

 

[Sports Guru]

I think Federer will do his complete try to remain himself unmatched in his records. According to sports news, much effort he will put to be the one and only grass court king. Wimbledon updates would be available for fans all around the globe on latest sports news.

 

[NonP]

Yes, I can see what you mean. I should have been more careful in limiting my rejection of the importance of institutional/structural factors to cases where said factors did not influence competition. But I now disagree with you that mental pressure is analogous to outside level of competition in terms of its effect on the objective worth of an achievement.

For example, assume that winning the FO and winning the USO are equally good achievements. Now imagine a player from the US winning the FO, and then winning the USO with huge home-crowd pressure to perform. Imagine a second player who had also won both tournaments but was from England. And assume that in all other respects the players are equal (game, achievements etc.). Are the achievements of the first player objectively greater than the achievements of the second because the pressure the first player was under to win the USO made it a greater achievement than it would have been sans pressure? I don't think so, and if you do, all I can say is that I disagree. Winning the USO for our first player might be a greater achievement for him personally (because of the home-crowd pressure etc), but it is not an objectively greater achievement.

Not a good analogy. First of all, whether the home-crowd pressure at the majors affects the player in question depends on his nationality or origin, while the CYGS puts pressure on anyone who pursues it, regardless of his origin. That alone renders this analogy moot. And more importantly, the player's origin itself is not a foolproof indicator of the pressure he's likely to face due to the home crowd. In fact quite the contrary was true for Connors, who fed off the crowd's support at the USO like no other before him or since. And there are enough examples of the home crowd rooting for the underdogs, for veterans having one last hurrah, etc. I'd say the only event where the home crowd is almost sure to support their countrymen is Davis Cup, and even this isn't quite so black-and-white, as tennis is still an individual sport and more than a few fans would be cheering for their faves no matter what.

I can understand the prestige making the CYGS generally regarded as being the superior achievement, but if considerations of prestige have no effect on the outside level competition for a CYGS relative to an NCYGS - which I've argued they don't upthread - then I personally see no reason to regard the CYGS as a superior achievement.

Not a good analogy. First of all, whether the home-crowd pressure at the majors affects the player in question depends on his nationality or origin, while the CYGS puts pressure on anyone who pursues it, regardless of his origin. That alone renders this analogy moot. And more importantly, the player's origin itself is not a foolproof indicator of the pressure he's likely to face from the home crowd. In fact quite the contrary was true for Connors, who fed off the crowd's support at the USO like no other before him or since. And there are enough examples of the home crowd rooting for foreign underdogs, veterans having one last hurrah, etc. I'd say the only event where the home crowd is almost sure to support their countrymen is Davis Cup, and even this isn't quite so black-and-white, as tennis is still an individual sport and more than a few fans would be cheering for their faves no matter what.

You use the word "objective" like this is a simple probabilistic issue, but it's not. You think winning 4 majors in a row is a great achievement, and that the majors are very important, at least more important than the non-GS events. No doubt you think so partly because of their prestige or historical importance, though you may not realize it. Similarly many think the CYGS carries special importance in part, again, because of its own prestige, in addition to the competition, variety of surfaces, and pressure of the occasion, and so on. Like I said, stats are nothing without context. You take what you consider important and assign a value of your own to them. That's how they become "great" achievements in your mind. There's nothing "objective" about these stats.

So you say you don't count any such factors if they have no effect on the level of competition, but as I said in my last post the pressure put on the player by his competition is no different in nature from the additional pressure that comes with seeking the CYGS, excelling on all surfaces, dealing with the crowd, etc. What these have in common is that they all affect the player mentally, hence the pressure. So far you have not explained how the pressure the player faces from his competitors differs from the other types of mental pressure in any meaningful way, or why the prestige of the majors is relevant while that of the CYGS is not.

 

[piece]

Not a good analogy. First of all, whether the home-crowd pressure at the majors affects the player in question depends on his nationality or origin, while the CYGS puts pressure on anyone who pursues it, regardless of his origin. That alone renders this analogy moot. And more importantly, the player's origin itself is not a foolproof indicator of the pressure he's likely to face from the home crowd. In fact quite the contrary was true for Connors, who fed off the crowd's support at the USO like no other before him or since. And there are enough examples of the home crowd rooting for foreign underdogs, veterans having one last hurrah, etc. I'd say the only event where the home crowd is almost sure to support their countrymen is Davis Cup, and even this isn't quite so black-and-white, as tennis is still an individual sport and more than a few fans would be cheering for their faves no matter what.

You use the word "objective" like this is a simple probabilistic issue, but it's not. You think winning 4 majors in a row is a great achievement, and that the majors are very important, at least more important than the non-GS events. No doubt you think so partly because of their prestige or historical importance, though you may not realize it. Similarly many think the CYGS carries special importance in part, again, because of its own prestige, in addition to the competition, variety of surfaces, and pressure of the occasion, and so on. Like I said, stats are nothing without context. You take what you consider important and assign a value of your own to them. That's how they become "great" achievements in your mind. There's nothing "objective" about these stats.

So you say you don't count any such factors if they have no effect on the level of competition, but as I said in my last post the pressure put on the player by his competition is no different in nature from the additional pressure that comes with seeking the CYGS, excelling on all surfaces, dealing with the crowd, etc. What these have in common is that they all affect the player mentally, hence the pressure. So far you have not explained how the pressure the player faces from his competitors differs from the other types of mental pressure in any meaningful way, or why the prestige of the majors is relevant while that of the CYGS is not.

I'm not particularly interested in continuing this discussion as I feel points that both parties have addressed are simply being rehashed with no progress being achieved. I believe I have made my points well, and that no good argument has been made against my key points. I'm sure you feel differently.

Two things I will say:

1. People on this forum has a very poor grasp of what constitutes a relevant disanalogy.

2. I have, in fact, explained how the prestige of the majors is a relevant factor in weighting achievement whilst the prestige of a CYGS is not. I will explain it again now, briefly

The prestige associated with majors means every player wants to win one more than they want to win other tournaments. This means it will be, on average, harder to defeat a certain player in a GS as opposed to a non-GS. This outside competition factor makes the achievement hard. So, in summary, the outside factors preventing you from attaining this achievement are stronger than they are in non-GS.

Now, you may think the situation with a CYGS is comparable, but it is not. The outside factors (other players) preventing one from attaining a CYGS are not greater in a CYGS than in a NCYGS, because in both cases these outside factors are just players trying to win a particular major, just like they would any other major. That you just so happen to be gunning for a CYGS as opposed to an NCYGS isn't going to make your opponents play any better or try any harder, because they're in it for the title themselves - they're already trying their best to win anyway, they're not trying to stop you from a particular achievment.

The factor you've been arguing is relevant is the added pressure. To demonstrate that you are correct in this, firstly you would have to show that there is, in fact, more pressure for a CYGS than for an NCYGS, and secondly, even if you did, I've already explained why pressure felt by a player in achieving something doesn't affect the worth of that achievement when comparing achievements between players.

That's all I have to say. I've never said anyone else was wrong or silly to think that a CYGS was more important, I didn't think my opinion on this was going to be such a huge issue.

 

[The Baseline]

I'm not particularly interested in continuing this discussion as I feel points that both parties have addressed are simply being rehashed with no progress being achieved. I believe I have made my points well, and that no good argument has been made against my key points. I'm sure you feel differently.

Two things I will say:

1. People on this forum has a very poor grasp of what constitutes a relevant disanalogy.

2. I have, in fact, explained how the prestige of the majors is a relevant factor in weighting achievement whilst the prestige of a CYGS is not. I will explain it again now, briefly

The prestige associated with majors means every player wants to win one more than they want to win other tournaments. This means it will be, on average, harder to defeat a certain player in a GS as opposed to a non-GS. This outside competition factor makes the achievement hard. So, in summary, the outside factors preventing you from attaining this achievement are stronger than they are in non-GS.

Now, you may think the situation with a CYGS is comparable, but it is not. The outside factors (other players) preventing one from attaining a CYGS are not greater in a CYGS than in a NCYGS, because in both cases these outside factors are just players trying to win a particular major, just like they would any other major. That you just so happen to be gunning for a CYGS as opposed to an NCYGS isn't going to make your opponents play any better or try any harder, because they're in it for the title themselves - they're already trying their best to win anyway, they're not trying to stop you from a particular achievment.

The factor you've been arguing is relevant is the added pressure. To demonstrate that you are correct in this, firstly you would have to show that there is, in fact, more pressure for a CYGS than for an NCYGS, and secondly, even if you did, I've already explained why pressure felt by a player in achieving something doesn't affect the worth of that achievement when comparing achievements between players.

That's all I have to say. I've never said anyone else was wrong or silly to think that a CYGS was more important, I didn't think my opinion on this was going to be such a huge issue.

Good points. Just look at the physical exertion in the majors. Now thats what seperates the greats from the pretenders. Nadal and Federer have achieved their distinctions because the majors are where your career is on edge.

 

[NonP]

1. People on this forum has a very poor grasp of what constitutes a relevant disanalogy.

If you think you have a legitimate beef, you may want to ditch the weasel words and specify who made which "relevant disanalogy." I've already explained why the last analogy you made was a bad one.

The prestige associated with majors means every player wants to win one more than they want to win other tournaments. This means it will be, on average, harder to defeat a certain player in a GS as opposed to a non-GS. This outside competition factor makes the achievement hard. So, in summary, the outside factors preventing you from attaining this achievement are stronger than they are in non-GS.

Now, you may think the situation with a CYGS is comparable, but it is not. The outside factors (other players) preventing one from attaining a CYGS are not greater in a CYGS than in a NCYGS, because in both cases these outside factors are just players trying to win a particular major, just like they would any other major. That you just so happen to be gunning for a CYGS as opposed to an NCYGS isn't going to make your opponents play any better or try any harder, because they're in it for the title themselves - they're already trying their best to win anyway, they're not trying to stop you from a particular achievment.

The factor you've been arguing is relevant is the added pressure. To demonstrate that you are correct in this, firstly you would have to show that there is, in fact, more pressure for a CYGS than for an NCYGS, and secondly, even if you did, I've already explained why pressure felt by a player in achieving something doesn't affect the worth of that achievement when comparing achievements between players.

That's an assumption on your part, and an unsupported one at that. One could say instead that since the players want to win the majors more than any other events, those with questionable mental strength tend to squander their chances at the majors more often than they normally would, thereby making it easier for the established or future mentally stronger champions to earn their major titles. And since difficulty is your main criterion you need to present factors other than the players' desire which do establish that the majors are in fact more difficult to win than other events.

(And just for the record, it's not true that every player wants to win majors more than anything else. Nalbandian for one has said on record that he'd prefer a Davis Cup to a Slam trophy, and Dementieva for another has said that an Olympic gold medal is an even greater achievement than a major title in her book.)

But let's assume for now that how much the players want to win them is what sets the majors apart from non-GS tournaments. You say that in this respect a CYGS is no greater achievement than an NCYGS because the players would be trying hard no matter what situation their opponent is in. That may be true, but the one seeking a CYGS would be wanting it more. That's the additional-pressure factor. An NCYGS just doesn't have the same cachet as a CYGS in real life. You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who wondered about Nadal's chances at an NCYGS when he won the FO in '08. Maybe a career GS, but not an NCYGS. On the other hand there was plenty of talk about Federer possibly pulling off a CYGS--as recently as this year, actually. And like I said there's also the scheduling and expectation factors that accompany the CYGS.

But you say there's no significant difference between the two GS's. If the desire of the players is what makes the majors special, then the desire of the player seeking a CYGS is clearly a factor. So far you have yet to account for that. You might say you're still not convinced that players do want a CYGS more, but then one could also say he's not convinced that the majors are more difficult to win just because the players want to win them more, or even that the players do want to win majors more than anything else. And note that these positions are decidedly nontraditional--that is, they all downplay the prestige of the GS's in question.

That said, it's fine with me if you just want to leave it at that. Your call.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I'm not particularly interested in continuing this discussion as I feel points that both parties have addressed are simply being rehashed with no progress being achieved. I believe I have made my points well, and that no good argument has been made against my key points. I'm sure you feel differently.

Two things I will say:

1. People on this forum has a very poor grasp of what constitutes a relevant disanalogy.

2. I have, in fact, explained how the prestige of the majors is a relevant factor in weighting achievement whilst the prestige of a CYGS is not. I will explain it again now, briefly

The prestige associated with majors means every player wants to win one more than they want to win other tournaments. This means it will be, on average, harder to defeat a certain player in a GS as opposed to a non-GS. This outside competition factor makes the achievement hard. So, in summary, the outside factors preventing you from attaining this achievement are stronger than they are in non-GS.

Now, you may think the situation with a CYGS is comparable, but it is not. The outside factors (other players) preventing one from attaining a CYGS are not greater in a CYGS than in a NCYGS, because in both cases these outside factors are just players trying to win a particular major, just like they would any other major. That you just so happen to be gunning for a CYGS as opposed to an NCYGS isn't going to make your opponents play any better or try any harder, because they're in it for the title themselves - they're already trying their best to win anyway, they're not trying to stop you from a particular achievment.

The factor you've been arguing is relevant is the added pressure. To demonstrate that you are correct in this, firstly you would have to show that there is, in fact, more pressure for a CYGS than for an NCYGS, and secondly, even if you did, I've already explained why pressure felt by a player in achieving something doesn't affect the worth of that achievement when comparing achievements between players.

That's all I have to say. I've never said anyone else was wrong or silly to think that a CYGS was more important, I didn't think my opinion on this was going to be such a huge issue.

I addressed a few of those points in my last 2 posts in this thread. Did you agree with me?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I'm not particularly interested in continuing this discussion as I feel points that both parties have addressed are simply being rehashed with no progress being achieved. I believe I have made my points well, and that no good argument has been made against my key points. I'm sure you feel differently.

Two things I will say:

1. People on this forum has a very poor grasp of what constitutes a relevant disanalogy.

2. I have, in fact, explained how the prestige of the majors is a relevant factor in weighting achievement whilst the prestige of a CYGS is not. I will explain it again now, briefly

The prestige associated with majors means every player wants to win one more than they want to win other tournaments. This means it will be, on average, harder to defeat a certain player in a GS as opposed to a non-GS. This outside competition factor makes the achievement hard. So, in summary, the outside factors preventing you from attaining this achievement are stronger than they are in non-GS.

Now, you may think the situation with a CYGS is comparable, but it is not. The outside factors (other players) preventing one from attaining a CYGS are not greater in a CYGS than in a NCYGS, because in both cases these outside factors are just players trying to win a particular major, just like they would any other major. That you just so happen to be gunning for a CYGS as opposed to an NCYGS isn't going to make your opponents play any better or try any harder, because they're in it for the title themselves - they're already trying their best to win anyway, they're not trying to stop you from a particular achievment.

The factor you've been arguing is relevant is the added pressure. To demonstrate that you are correct in this, firstly you would have to show that there is, in fact, more pressure for a CYGS than for an NCYGS, and secondly, even if you did, I've already explained why pressure felt by a player in achieving something doesn't affect the worth of that achievement when comparing achievements between players.

That's all I have to say. I've never said anyone else was wrong or silly to think that a CYGS was more important, I didn't think my opinion on this was going to be such a huge issue.

Read my 2 posts previous to your post. Your point 2 here is incorrect as proved in my 2 posts.

 

[piece]

If you think you have a legitimate beef, you may want to ditch the weasel words and specify who made which "relevant disanalogy." I've already explained why the last analogy you made was a bad one.



That's an assumption on your part, and an unsupported one at that. One could say instead that since the players want to win the majors more than any other events, those with questionable mental strength tend to squander their chances at the majors more often than they normally would, thereby making it easier for the established or future mentally stronger champions to earn their major titles. And since difficulty is your main criterion you need to present factors other than the players' desire which do establish that the majors are in fact more difficult to win than other events.

(And just for the record, it's not true that every player wants to win majors more than anything else. Nalbandian for one has said on record that he'd prefer a Davis Cup to a Slam trophy, and Dementieva for another has said that an Olympic gold medal is an even greater achievement than a major title in her book.)

But let's assume for now that how much the players want to win them is what sets the majors apart from non-GS tournaments. You say that in this respect a CYGS is no greater achievement than an NCYGS because the players would be trying hard no matter what situation their opponent is in. That may be true, but the one seeking a CYGS would be wanting it more. That's the additional-pressure factor. An NCYGS just doesn't have the same cachet as a CYGS in real life. You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who wondered about Nadal's chances at an NCYGS when he won the FO in '08. Maybe a career GS, but not an NCYGS. On the other hand there was plenty of talk about Federer possibly pulling off a CYGS--as recently as this year, actually. And like I said there's also the scheduling and expectation factors that accompany the CYGS.

But you say there's no significant difference between the two GS's. If the desire of the players is what makes the majors special, then the desire of the player seeking a CYGS is clearly a factor. So far you have yet to account for that. You might say you're still not convinced that players do want a CYGS more, but then one could also say he's not convinced that the majors are more difficult to win just because the players want to win them more, or even that the players do want to win majors more than anything else. And note that these positions are decidedly nontraditional--that is, they all downplay the prestige of the GS's in question.

That said, it's fine with me if you just want to leave it at that. Your call.

I'm happy to leave it at that because I believe I have addressed most of the important points you have made.

Nalbandian's and Dementiava's positions are interesting, but I don't think they're representative. Do you? And it's an interesting perspective that a slam might induce more chokes and thus be easier to win, but I think in general this isn't the case. I realise this is an assumption, but I think a reasonable one, and I would venture to guess that you would think it is reasonable too.

But as I said, aside from these perspectives you introduced, I believe I have addressed all other points of substance that you have re-made in your latest post.

One thing I didn't get: what were the "weasel words" I used?
Also, one doesn't 'make' a disanalogy. The unfamiliarity with the concept suggested by your wording in this instance serves to exhibit the deficiency I suggested exists in this forum. A disanalogy is a point of difference between two concepts/situations (usually only when the concepts/situations have been argued to be analogous). You pointed out a disanalogy between the two pressure situations I compared, but a disanalogy on its own does no damage to an analogy - the disanalogy has to be relevant. So no, you did not explain what was wrong with my analogy (I don't think there is, in fact, anything wrong with it), you merely pointed out a difference between the two things I was comparing. This is not sufficient to refute an argument by analogy.

Anyway, your persistence in hammering home some of your points suggests to me that I'm not going to convince you with the arguments I've posted against those points, so I'm happy to leave our CYGS/NCYGS argument where it is.

 

[piece]

Read my 2 posts previous to your post. Your point 2 here is incorrect as proved in my 2 posts.

You seemed to be saying that a player tries harder for the 4th slam of a CYGS than for the 4th of an NCYGS, therefore the CYGS is harder to achieve. This seems like a non sequitur to me. If you put more resources into preparing for the CYGS so that you might play better, doesn't that mean the CYGS would actually be easier for you to win because you're playing better?

Anyway, I would dispute that players would train harder to win than they would for a normal slam - pretty much everyone gives their best in preparing for slams anyway, unless perhaps they were an oldie on their way out and they thought "to hell with my body, I'm gonna get this record before I go!"

 

[Deleted member 3771]

You seemed to be saying that a player tries harder for the 4th slam of a CYGS than for the 4th of an NCYGS, therefore the CYGS is harder to achieve. This seems like a non sequitur to me. If you put more resources into preparing for the CYGS so that you might play better, doesn't that mean the CYGS would actually be easier for you to win because you're playing better?

Anyway, I would dispute that players would train harder to win than they would for a normal slam - pretty much everyone gives their best in preparing for slams anyway, unless perhaps they were an oldie on their way out and they thought "to hell with my body, I'm gonna get this record before I go!"

The point that is confusing you is how much harder a CYGS or NCYGS is relative to other people attempting the same thing(once it has already been established that players across eras consider a CYGS more important than a NCYGs via surveys or whatever), not relative to oneself.

By other people i don't mean competitors in the same event. but across different eras.

Read what I typed in those 2 posts more carefully.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

1/
You seemed to be saying that a player tries harder for the 4th slam of a CYGS than for the 4th of an NCYGS, therefore the CYGS is harder to achieve. This seems like a non sequitur to me. If you put more resources into preparing for the CYGS so that you might play better, doesn't that mean the CYGS would actually be easier for you to win because you're playing better?
2/
Anyway, I would dispute that players would train harder to win than they would for a normal slam - pretty much everyone gives their best in preparing for slams anyway, unless perhaps they were an oldie on their way out and they thought "to hell with my body, I'm gonna get this record before I go!"

Obviously if a player can aim for a NCYGs as well as for a CYGS, then he gets to try harder at the 4th slam of a NCYGs than everyone else across any era who doesn't regard the NCYGs as very important.If a player aims for only 1 specific predetermined NCYG, then it can be roughly considered as difficult as a traditional slam.


I think I have already said this but to be clearer
1/

The only situation when a NCYGS achieved in this era could be considered similarly as important and as difficult as a traditional CYGS achieved in this era or any era is if all players, and everyone else in this era agreed in advance that that 1 specific sequence of 4 slams was going to be considered as important as the 'old' regular CYGS. Otherwise anyone achieving a NCYGS, and giving it the importance of a CYGS is competing against an easier criteria than anyone else attempting a CYGS or a NCYGs in any era or the current era,and is at a relative advantage as that person is the only one 'trying harder' relative to everyone else in every era at attempting the 4th slam of the NCYGS.



2/ People devote more resources to events they consider more important as this gives them an incentive to devote more/better resources to it. This is called trying harder, and tennis is not an exception.

Players only 'give their best', given the preparation and resources used to prepare for the event. Their potential best will be a potentially better effort if they have used more/better resources to prepare for an event. I think some players have even skipped the FO in the past to devote extra resources, training and time to prepare for Wimbledon, so their potential best effort at Wimbledon was greater - so they try harder to win it that year than than they normally would have to win that slam. Same applies for the 4th slam in a traditional CYGS compared to a regular slam or the 4th slam of a NCYGS.

Anyways this is only relevant if comparing a NCYGS to the CYGS or NCYGS if the conditions in my paragraph 1 don't apply.

Hope that's clearer for you, and maybe we agree.

 

[NonP]

I'm happy to leave it at that because I believe I have addressed most of the important points you have made.

Actually you haven't. See below.

Nalbandian's and Dementiava's positions are interesting, but I don't think they're representative. Do you? And it's an interesting perspective that a slam might induce more chokes and thus be easier to win, but I think in general this isn't the case. I realise this is an assumption, but I think a reasonable one, and I would venture to guess that you would think it is reasonable too.

If you want to evaluate such opinions on the basis of whether they're "representative" or not, you may also want to apply the same standard to the "representative" opinion regarding the CYGS vs. some other random consecutive NCYGS of one's choosing. It's no less reasonable an assumption than the one that the majors are harder to win because they're the events that the players want to win the most.

And though my point was just that this relative desire of the players doesn't necessarily make the majors harder, not that they're actually easier to win than other events, I've seen some fans argue precisely the latter, namely that the Masters tournaments are in fact harder than the majors because of the best-of-3 rather than best-of-5 format and in turn the more likelihood for upsets. And Federer himself has weighed in on this, granting that the MS events may indeed be harder to win because there's no day of rest between the matches as at the majors. This is a reasonable argument, not an assumption, though I still disagree.

One thing I didn't get: what were the "weasel words" I used?

First, you said "people on this forum." That was a deliberate attempt on your part to identify the particular culprits. Second, since you didn't specify who in your opinion have a "poor grasp of what constitutes a relevant disanalogy," that particular point of yours was actually pointless and served no other purpose than to give a piece of your mind and/or make yourself look superior, which I don't doubt was your intention.

I do doubt that you were genuinely confused as to which part of your statement constituted weasel words, but there's the answer to your question.

Also, one doesn't 'make' a disanalogy. The unfamiliarity with the concept suggested by your wording in this instance serves to exhibit the deficiency I suggested exists in this forum. A disanalogy is a point of difference between two concepts/situations (usually only when the concepts/situations have been argued to be analogous). You pointed out a disanalogy between the two pressure situations I compared, but a disanalogy on its own does no damage to an analogy - the disanalogy has to be relevant. So no, you did not explain what was wrong with my analogy (I don't think there is, in fact, anything wrong with it), you merely pointed out a difference between the two things I was comparing. This is not sufficient to refute an argument by analogy.

I'm well aware what a disanalogy is. You might not want to act like you're the only one here who has studied formal logic and who is qualified to dish out unsolicited and tangential lectures.

And yes, I did explain what's wrong with your analogy. Here's what you said:

For example, assume that winning the FO and winning the USO are equally good achievements. Now imagine a player from the US winning the FO, and then winning the USO with huge home-crowd pressure to perform. Imagine a second player who had also won both tournaments but was from England. And assume that in all other respects the players are equal (game, achievements etc.). Are the achievements of the first player objectively greater than the achievements of the second because the pressure the first player was under to win the USO made it a greater achievement than it would have been sans pressure? I don't think so, and if you do, all I can say is that I disagree. Winning the USO for our first player might be a greater achievement for him personally (because of the home-crowd pressure etc), but it is not an objectively greater achievement.

And here's what I said in response:

Not a good analogy. First of all, whether the home-crowd pressure at the majors affects the player in question depends on his nationality or origin, while the CYGS puts pressure on anyone who pursues it, regardless of his origin. That alone renders this analogy moot. And more importantly, the player's origin itself is not a foolproof indicator of the pressure he's likely to face from the home crowd. In fact quite the contrary was true for Connors, who fed off the crowd's support at the USO like no other before him or since. And there are enough examples of the home crowd rooting for foreign underdogs, veterans having one last hurrah, etc. I'd say the only event where the home crowd is almost sure to support their countrymen is Davis Cup, and even this isn't quite so black-and-white, as tennis is still an individual sport and more than a few fans would be cheering for their faves no matter what.

Your analogy was based on the premise that the first player would've been under more pressure than the second because of the home crowd, but I disputed this very premise in my response and explained why this isn't a black-and-white issue of nationality. That was after I pointed out the disanalogy. And I went on to ask why you think such mental pressure matters only when it pertains to the competition, especially when you argued that the majors are more important than other events because the players want to win them more, which makes the desire of the few players pursuing a CYGS particularly relevant.

The "people on this forum" might not know what a fallacist’s fallacy is, but I'm guessing they do recognize a red herring when they see one.

Anyway, your persistence in hammering home some of your points suggests to me that I'm not going to convince you with the arguments I've posted against those points, so I'm happy to leave our CYGS/NCYGS argument where it is.

I never asked to be convinced. I would've ended this discussion a long time ago if you'd simply said you prefer your personal metric, but then you also questioned my reasoning or analogy and expanded on why you disagree. As for my "hammering home" some of the same points over and over, you just made a new point about the players' desire with respect to the majors, and I made my own regarding the desire of the player(s) gunning for the CYGS, which you have yet to address. It's fine if you just want to leave it at that. Just don't spin it your way. I never repeated the same points in response to your own points.

 

[piece]

It's tough to leave it at that when I feel my arguments are right, and that my overall position is a legitimate one - but I feel I've made sufficiently good points in defence of my position that have yet to be refuted, so I'm content to end the discussion here (especially now that you're implying that I'm being dishonest). And I understand that you feel differently.

I appreciate the discussion though, you seem like a smart guy and you argue you points capably (although I, of course, think I've pointed out some flaws in your reasoning:twisted.

 

[NonP]

It's tough to leave it at that when I feel my arguments are right, and that my overall position is a legitimate one - but I feel I've made sufficiently good points in defence of my position that have yet to be refuted, so I'm content to end the discussion here (especially now that you're implying that I'm being dishonest). And I understand that you feel differently.

I appreciate the discussion though, you seem like a smart guy and you argue you points capably (although I, of course, think I've pointed out some flaws in your reasoning:twisted.

OK. The arguments are there for other posters to judge for themselves.